Oklahoma case over religious virtual charter St. Isidore heads to U.S. Supreme Court after state high court orders rescission

Legislative counsel Bethany Champs told the Vermont House Education Committee on May 20 that the dispute over St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School — a proposed state‑sponsored religious virtual charter in Oklahoma — is now before the U.S. Supreme Court after the Oklahoma Supreme Court ordered the charter contract rescinded.

Champs, legislative counsel in the Office of Legislative Council, said the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa applied to the Oklahoma Charter School Board to create St. Isidore and that the board voted 3‑2 in October 2023 to approve a sponsorship contract that included modified language allowing the school “the right to freely exercise its religious beliefs and practices consistent with its religious protections.”

Why it matters: the Oklahoma Supreme Court concluded that the contract and state funding to operate St. Isidore would amount to state support of a religious institution in violation of the Oklahoma Constitution and the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court; oral argument was held April 30, and a decision from the high court is widely expected in late June.

Champs summarized key factual and legal points the committee discussed: Oklahoma law treats charter schools as public schools but, she said, states differ on how much of the law applies to charter operators. The Archdiocese and Diocese framed St. Isidore’s mission in their application as “Rooted in the Catholic understanding of the human person and her or his relationship with God and neighbor, St. Isidore fully embraces the teachings of the Catholic Church’s Magisterium,” language Champs read from the application.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that St. Isidore was sufficiently entwined with the state to be a state actor and therefore could not receive state funding to operate a school whose curriculum and daily life “fully incorporate Catholic teachings,” Champs said she read from the opinion. The court concluded that allowing state funding for that kind of religious schooling would violate the state constitution’s ban on using public funds for sectarian institutions and the federal Establishment Clause.

Champs walked the committee through the competing First Amendment theories at issue. She said the school and the Charter Board argue that, under the free exercise line of cases that includes Trinity Lutheran, Espinosa and the more recent Carson decision, the state cannot exclude religiously affiliated schools from publicly funded programs solely because they are religious. The Oklahoma Supreme Court, she said, distinguished those precedents on their facts and found that here the Establishment Clause concerns outweighed the free‑exercise claim.

Champs also noted procedural points raised in the litigation: the Charter Board modified its model contract for St. Isidore to include the religious‑exercise language; the Oklahoma attorney general sought a writ of mandamus asking the board to rescind the contract; and the state high court ordered rescission. If the U.S. Supreme Court is evenly divided -- Justice Amy Coney Barrett sat out the case, Champs said -- the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision would stand.

Committee members asked for clarifications about how the case differs from Carson and related precedents and whether the Oklahoma constitutional provision reflected older “Blaine Amendment” language; Champs said she had not delved into the full historical record and offered to follow up.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s forthcoming opinion could be narrow and limited to Oklahoma’s facts or carry broader national implications for charter laws and state contracts, Champs warned; she emphasized that the ultimate holdings will depend on how the justices frame the state‑actor question and the balance between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

For now, the case’s status is: Oklahoma’s high court ordered rescission; that ruling was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard argument April 30. A final opinion from the high court is expected in late June and could affect other states depending on its scope.